The court established that non-compliance with statutory provisions regarding termination under the Industrial Disputes Act leads to invalid termination and entitlement to compensation.

ORDER

1. Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner (hereinafter to be referred as 'Employer') challenging the Award dated 28.03.2019 passed by Industrial Tribunal & Labour Court, Alwar (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Tribunal') in Case LCR-136/2006 (Old No.330/99) whereby the Tribunal while holding the alleged termination of the respondent (hereinafter to be referred as 'workman') to be invalid, directed for his reinstatement with continuity of service along with 25% back wages from the date of termination to the date of award i.e. from 24.09.1991 to 28.03.2019.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the workman in his statement of claim averred that he was engaged as a labour by the employer on 01.11.1990 and continuously worked upto 24.09.1991. It was also stated by him that neither any notice of terminating his services nor any amount/compensation in lieu thereof was given to him. It was also averred that along with the workman certain other persons were also engaged, but only the services of the workman were terminated and before terminating his services no opportunity of hearing was afforded to him. It was also stated that the employer apart from violating the principles of justice has also violated the provisions of Sections 25F & 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Act of 1947') and lastly it was prayed that while declaring the termination of the workman as illegal & invalid, the employer be directed to reinstate him with continuity of service with all consequential benefits.

3. The employer filed reply to the statement of claim and stated that the workman was engaged for the work of typist/ stenographer on daily wages of Rs.23.50 vide order no.204 dated 01.11.1990 for a period of three months or till the regularly selected candidates are available and thus the workman was engaged on alternative basis and thereafter no order extending his services was passed. It was also stated by the employer that since no further approval/sanction was received from the Directorate (Mines) and Geology Department, therefore, vide order no.136 dated 12.09.1991, the services of the workman were terminated with immediate effect. It was further stated that the workman is not entitled to any relief or compensation as he was neither temporary nor permanent employee. It was further averred that the workman was engaged for a particular period and on expiry of the particular period since there was no order of extension, therefore, services of the workman automatically came to an end and while denying all the averments made in the statement of claim, it was prayed that the claim of the workman be rejected.

4. On behalf of the workman, the affidavit of workman himself (AW-1) was produced and no documentary evidence was produced by the Workman while from the side of the employer affidavit of NAW-1 Pratap Singh Meena, was produced in evidence and in documentary evidence the documents D-l to D-11 were produced.

5. Counsel for the employer submitted that the workman was engaged for the work of typist/stenographer only for a fixed period of three months and since the sanction/approval was not granted by the Directorate (Mines) and Geology Department for extending his term, the services of the workman automatically came to an end and thus the workman had not continuously worked for a period of 240 days preceding his termination, therefore he is not entitled to any relief. Counsel further submits that the workman was engaged for a particular period and no person other than the workman was engaged by the employer, therefore the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal regarding violation of the provisions of the Act of 1947 are perverse and lastly prayed that the award passed by the learned Tribunal be quashed and set aside.

6. In support of the contentions, counsel for the employer relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Krishna Bhagya Jal Nigam Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Rafi, r